Hawkins v. Ragsdale
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 66 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT. The divorce obtained by the appellant’s husband from hejr can only affect' rights to property in the state where it was granted. (Williams v. Preston, 3 J. J. Mar., 607; McGuire v. McGuire, 7 Dana, 187; 1 Wilcox, 27.) The effect of the Indiana divorce is to destroy all relations between the husband and appellant, and the Kentucky statute distinctly provides that a divorce bars all curtesy or dower. (Cooley’s Const.
Read the full summary
Case 66 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT. The divorce obtained by the appellant’s husband from hejr can only affect' rights to property in the state where it was granted. (Williams v. Preston, 3 J. J. Mar., 607; McGuire v. McGuire, 7 Dana, 187; 1 Wilcox, 27.) The effect of the Indiana divorce is to destroy all relations between the husband and appellant, and the Kentucky statute distinctly provides that a divorce bars all curtesy or dower. (Cooley’s Const. Lim., 399; Row. Inter-State Laws, 179; Herman on Estoppel, p. 222; Rankin v. Barnes, 5 Bush, 20.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HINES
delivered the opinion of the court.
A. S. Hawkins and appellant were husband ánd wife, residing in this state, where the husband owned certain lands. Appellant abandoned her husband, who subsequently removed to the state of Indiana, where he obtained a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, by proceeding on constructive service, and in compliance with the laws of that state. A. S. Hawkins afterwards married in the state of Indiana, and has since died. This is an action by appellant to recover dower in the lands lying in Kentucky, and owned by A. S. Hawkins at the time of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Muir v. MuirCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Kelly v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Atherton v. AthertonNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Williamson v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932